aWTHROPOlOGY  LIBRARY 


WC-MRLF 


'} 


■■r/ 


WAS_  THE    BEGINNirfc    DAY   OF    THE 

MAYA  MONTH  NUMBERED  ZERO 

(OR   TWENTY)   OR   ONE  ? 


BY 


CHARLES    P.   BOWDITCH 


CAMliRIDGE 
'I'mi   UNIVERSItV   PRESS 

1 901 


WAS    THE    BEGINNING    DAY   OF    THE 

MAYA  MONTH   NUMBERED  ZERO 

(OR   TWENTY)    OR    ONE? 


BY 

CHARLES    P.   BOWDITCH 


CAMBRIDGE 

THE   UNIVERSITY   PRESS 

1901 


a:f{  ^.. 


-/hdJ(^  ojj  <xX'-^_ 


ANTHROP 
LIBRARY 


WAS  THE  BEGINNING  DAY  OF  THE  MAYA  MONTH 
NUMBERED  ZERO  (OR  TWENTY)  OR  ONE? 

Goodman,  in  his  elaborate  and  valuable  book  on  the  Maya 
Inscriptions,  has  made  up  his  Tables  on  the  supposition  that  the 
beginning  day  of  the  month  was  not  called  Day   i,  but  Day  20, 
giving  the  day  this  number  because  in  his  view  the  Mayas  counted 
the  number  of  days  which  had   passed  and  not  the  current  or 
passing  day.     That  is,  the  Mayas,  according  to  Goodman,  used 
the  same  plan  in  counting  their  days  which  we  use  in  counting 
our  minutes  and  hours  and  which  we  depart  from  in  counting  our 
days.     Thus,  when  we  speak  of  January  i,  we  do  not  mean  that 
one  day  has  passed  since  January  came  in,  but  that  the  month 
of  December  has  passed  and  that  we  are  living  in  the  day  which 
when  completed  will  be  the  first  day  of  January.     But  when  we 
say  that  it  is  one  o'clock,  we  do  not  mean  that  we  are  living  in 
the  hour  which  when  passed  will  be  the  first  hour  of  the  day 
or  half-day,  but  we  mean  that  one  whole  hour  of  the  day  or 
half-day  has  fully  passed.     Goodman's  idea  is  that  the  Mayas  used 
this  system  in  counting  their  days  of  the  month,  their  kins,  uinals, 
tuns,  katuns,  and  cycles.     In  other  words  he   considers  that  the 
beginning  day  of  the  month  Pop  was  not  i    Pop,  but  20  Pop, 
the  beginning  day  of  Uo  was  20  Uo ;  that  the  beginning  kin  of  a 
uinal  was  Kin  20,  the  beginning  uinal  of  a  tun  was  Uinal  18,  the 
beginning  tun  of  a  katun  was  Tun  20,  that  the  beginning  katun 
of  a  cycle  was  Katun  20,  and  that  the  beginning  cycle  of  a  grand 
cycle  was  Cycle  13.     The  reason  why  Goodman  substitutes  18  and 
13  for  20  in  the  case  of  the  uinals  and  cycles  respectively  is  that 
these  are  the  numbers  of  uinals  and  cycles  which  are  needed 
to  make  one  of  the  next  higher  units  in  his  scale  of  numeration. 


^ 


MSsaiGS 


2  WAS   THE  BEGINNING  DAY  OF  THE  MAYA   MONTH 

Without  considering  the  truth  or  error  of  his  view  in  regard  to 
the  cycles,  katuns,  etc.,  let  us  try  to  solve  the  following  questions : 

I  St.  Did  the  Mayas  count  the  days  of  their  month  by  the 
day  which  had  passed,  as  we  count  our  hours  ? 

2d.  Was  the  number  which  they  gave  to  the  beginning  day 
of  the  month  o  or  20  ? 

For  our  answers  to  these  questions,  let  us  turn  to  pages  46-50 
of  the  Dresden  Codex.  These  pages  contain  three  rows  of  twenty 
month  dates  each,  and  each  of  these  dates  is  reached  with  but  two 
exceptions  by  counting  forward  from  the  preceding  date  the 
number  of  days  specified  in  red  at  the  bottom  of  the  pages,  the 
first  date  of  each  row  on  page  46  being  the  regular  number  of  days 
distant  from  the  last  date  of  the  same  row  on  page  50. 

In  the  first  row  of  dates,  we  find  that  the  third  date  on  page  48 
is  12  Chen.  The  number  of  days  at  the  bottom  of  the  page  which 
need  to  be  counted  forward  in  order  to  reach  the  fourth  date  is  8. 
If  the  beginning  day  of  the  month  were  marked  by  the  Mayas  with 
I,  then  the  last  day  would  be  marked  with  20,  and  by  adding  8 
days  to  12  Chen,  we  should  reach  20  Chen.  But  the  date  is  not 
20  Chen.  The  month  is  Yax,  —  the  month  immediately  following 
Chen,  —  and  the  glyph  which  takes  the  place  of  the  number 
has  a  form  resembling  two  half-circles  placed  side  by  side.  In 
other  words,  in  this  case  8  days  from  12  Chen  reach  ?  Yax,  and  as 
far  as  the  first  proposition  is  concerned,  it  is  immaterial  whether 
the  form  above  given  is  called  o  or  20.  Eight  days  have  taken  us 
out  of  the  month  Chen  into  the  next  month  Yax,  and  to  a  day 
of  that  month  which  is  not  i  Yax,  but  must  be  a  day  preceding 
I  Yax,  whether  that  is  called  o  Yax  or  20  Yax. 

Again,  the  first  date  of  the  first  row  of  month  dates  on  page  50 
is  10  Kankin,  and  the  number  at  the  bottom  of  the  page  to  be 
added  in  order  to  reach  the  second  date  is  90.  Counting  forward 
90  days  from  10  Kankin  we  should  reach  20  Cumhu,  if  the  begin- 


NUMBERED  ZERO   {OR   TWENTY)    OR   ONE?  3 

ning  day  of  the  month  is  i  Cumhu.  But  the  month  is  not  Cumhu 
nor  is  it  Pop,  but  it  is  undoubtedly  the  glyph  for  the  five  supple- 
mentary days,  Uayeb.  The  glyph  which  takes  the  place  of  the 
number  is  the  same  as  that  which  has  just  been  found  before  Yax. 
This  is  additional  evidence  that  the  months  began  with  o  or  20  and 
not  with  I. 

Again,  on  the  first  date  of  the  second  row  of  page  50  is  15 
Cumhu,  and  the  number  of  days  to  be  added  in  order  to  reach  the 
next  date  is  90,  which  appears  at  the  bottom  of  the  page.  Counting 
forward  this  number  of  days  from  15  Cumhu,  we  should  reach 
20  Zotz  if  the  beginning  day  of  the  month  were  i  Zotz.  But  the 
month  is  clearly  Tzec,  and  the  number  is  that  which  we  have 
already  found  twice  before  as  meaning  o  or  20. 

These  cases  would  seem  to  show  that  after  passing  day  19 
of  any  month,  we  reach  the  beginning  day  of  the  next  month,  and 
that  this  day  is  found  with  the  glyph  which  means  o  or  20. 

Against  this  is  the  evidence  of  the  last  month  date  of  the  third 
row  of  page  49,  which  is  clearly  9  Mac,  and  the  number  to  be 
added  at  the  bottom  of  the  page  is  236.  This  would  take  us 
to  20  Xul,  if  the  beginning  day  of  Xul  is  I  Xul,  but  to  o  or  20 
Yaxkin  if  the  beginning  day  of  Xul  is  o  or  20.  The  first  month 
date  of  the  third  row  of  page  50  is  o  or  20  Xul.  This,  I  think, 
is  clear,  although  the  Xul  glyph  is  not  exactly  like  the  other 
glyphs  of  this  month. 

Here  then  are  three  cases  which  support  Goodman's  view  and 
one  against  it.  The  weight  of  evidence  is  therefore  in  favor  of  his 
system  so  far. 

In  the  Inscriptions  there  are  not  very  many  cases  where  the 
month  has  the  zero  or  twenty  sign  attached  to  it,  and  there  are 
still  fewer  cases  where  this  occurs  in  a  position  where  the  question 
can  be  decided  from  the  context  as  to  whether  the  o  or  20  is  the 
last  day  of  one  month  or  the  beginning  day  of  the  next  month. 


4  fVAS   THE  BEGINNING  DAY  OF  THE  MAYA   MONTH 

On  the  inscription  of  the  Temple  of  the  Cross  at  Palenque, 
however,  we  have  a  month  date  which  is  5  Ahau  3  Tzec.  This  is 
on  R  S  10.  On  R  8  to  9  we  find  i  .  16 .  7 .  17 .,  if  the  thumb  with 
the  katun  glyph  means  i,  as  it  almost  surely  does.  Counting 
forward  this  number  of  days  from  5  Ahau  3  Tzec,  we  should  reach 

5  Caban  20  Zip  if  the  month  begins  with  i,  or  5  Caban  o  or  20 
Zotz  if  the  beginning  day  is  o  or  20.  On  S  12  R  13  is  5  Caban 
o  or  20  Zotz.  The  form  of  the  number  glyph  cannot  fail  to  recall 
that  of  the  similar  glyphs  in  the  Dresden  Codex. 

De  Rosny  has  given  in  his  **  Compte-Rendu  d'une  Mission 
Scientifique,"  published  in  the  "  Memoires  de  la  Society  d'Ethno- 
graphie,"  an  admirable  reproduction  of  the  wooden  inscription 
which  came  from  Tikal.  On  Plate  12  of  this  work  we  find  on 
A  B  I,  3  Ahau  3  Mol,  and  on  B  2  A  3,  we  have  2 .  11  .  12.  By 
counting  forward  this  number  of  days  from  3  Ahau  3  Mol  we 
reach  6  Eb  o  or  20  Pop,  if  the  month  begins  with  o  or  20, 
but  6  Eb  5  Uayeb  if  the  month  begins  with  i.^-^TKis  is  a 
particularly  strong  case,  for  the  month  is  surely  Pop  and  the 
number  is  certainly  not  5,  and  is  like  those  of  the  manuscripts  and 
of  the  Temple  of  the  Cross,  which  we  have  just  commented  on 
and  which  are  in  all  probability  o  or  20. 

Again,  on  a  part  of  a  doorway  in  El  Cayo,  on  C  D  3  we  find  13 
Cimi  19  Zotz  ;  on  H  3  G  4  is  a  number  which  seems  to  be  8  .  18  . 6. 
Counting  forward  we  reach  9  Eb  20  Uo,  if  the  month  begins  with 
I,  or  9  Eb  o  or  20  Zip,  if  the  months  begin  with  o  or  20, 
Although  the  glyphs  for  Uo  and  Zip  resemble  each  other,  yet  the 
date  on  I  J  I  is  clearly  9  Eb  o  or  20  Zip.  It  should  be  said, 
however,  that  the  number  on  H  3  G  4  is  somewhat  effaced  and 
very  unusual,  in  showing  18  uinals,  and  that  there  is  another  date 
5  ?  3  Yaxkin  on  E  F  3. 

On  the  other  hand  the  inscription  of  the  Temple  of  the  Cross 
shows  us  on  D  3  C  4,  4  Ahau  8  Cumhu,  and  on  D  5  C  6,  is  i .  9 . 2  ., 


f 


I 


NUMBERED  ZERO  {OR    TWENTY)    OR   ONE?  5 

which  is  equal  to  i  year  177  days.  Counting  forward  this  number 
of  days  from  4  Ahau  8  Cumhu  we  reach  13  Ik  20  Mol,  if  the  month 
begins  with  i,  or  o  or  20  Chen,  if  the  month  begins  with  o  or  20. 
On  C  D  9  we  find  13  Ik  ?  Mol.  However,  on  D  13  to  C  15  we 
have  the  long  number  i  .  18  .  3 .  12  . o.,  which  counted  forward  from 
13  Ik  20  Mol  brings  us  to  9  Ik  15  Zac,' which  is  not  found  any- 
where near  by.  But  if  we  count  forward  this  number  from  13  Ik  o 
or  20  Chen,  we  should  reach  9  Ik  15  Ceh,  which  is  found  on  E  F 
I.  It  would  seem,  therefore,  that  the  glyph  for  Mol  had  been 
carved  in  error  for  that  of  Chen. 

Other  cases  where  o  or  20  probably  occur  before  the  month 
sign  are  the  following : 

Copan,  Altar  U,    i  to    2  2  Caban  o  or  20  Pop. 

"  "     11,511052  3  Eb        o  or  20  Pop. 

Temple  of  the  Cross,  Q    2  P    3  11  Caban  o  or  20  Pop. 

u       a    u        »       F   12E13  9  Ik         oor2oChen(J.T.G.) 

"       "   "        "       EF9  91k         oor2oYaxorZac. 

The  month  glyph  of  the  last  example  looks  like  Zac.  If  it 
is  Yax  it  proves  Goodman's  theory  by  calculation. 

Thus  we  see  that  in  three  out  of  four  cases  in  the  Dresden 
Codex  and  in  three  cases  out  of  four  in  the  Inscriptions  where  the 
context  is  such  as  to  throw  light  on  the  question,  the  evidence 
is  in  favor  of  concluding  that  the  months  began  with  a  day  o  or  20 
and  not  with  a  day  i.  Moreover  in  the  single  case  in  the  Codex 
which  tends  to  prove  the  contrary,  it  is  interesting  to  see  that  the 
month  glyph,  Xul,  is  somewhat  different  from  the  other  Xul 
glyphs,  while  in  the  doubtful  case  in  the  inscriptions,  if  the  month 
glyph  had  been  Chen  and  not  Mol,  it  would  have  agreed  with  the 
dates  before  and  after  it.  In  other  words,  the  calculations  both 
before  and  after  the  date  in  question  would  be  quite  accurate  if  the 
month  were  Chen  and  if,  therefore,  the  beginning  day  were  o  or  20, 


7A-C>*Vin/Ut^/k5JC.%<^->^   >**^   O 


6  fVAS   THE  BEGINNING  DA  Y  OF  THE  MA  YA   MONTH 

while  the  glyph  of  Mol  makes  the  calculation  after  that  date 
inaccurate. 

All  the  evidence  taken  gives  a  very  strong  presumption  in  favor 
of  Goodman's  theory  that  the  month  began  with  o  or  20. 

It  is  also  interesting  to  notice  that  of  the  other  dates  given 
above  where  the  calculation  does  not  help  us,  three  of  these  are 
o  or  20  Pop  (provided  we  have  identified  the  number  glyph 
correctly,  which  is  certainly  none  of  the  known  glyphs  for  any 
of  the  numbers  i  to  19).  This  date  would  not  be  significant  if 
20  Pop  were  the  last  day  of  the  month,  but  it  would  be  very 
significant  if  it  were  the  beginning  day  of  the  month,  that  is  the 
beginning  day  of  the  New  Year.  I  think,  therefore,  that  it  is  safe 
to  assume  as  a  good  working  hypothesis  that  the  beginning  days 
of  the  month  were  designated  as  o  or  20,  and  the  last  day  of  the 
month  as  19. 

The  second  of  our  questions,  —  namely,  whether  this  beginning 
day  was  called  Day  o  or  Day  20,  —  must  now  be  taken  up.  Of 
course  if  we  had  decided  that  those  cases  which  we  have  been 
considering  represented  the  last  days  of  the  month,  there  would 
have  been  no  question  that  the  number  glyphs  which  were  not  any 
of  the  numbers  from  i  to  19  must  be  the  number  20.  It  would 
have  been  very  improbable  that  after  having  numbered  the  days 
of  a  month  from  i  to  19  they  would  have  called  the  last  day  o. 
But  it  is  not  as  certain  that  they  might  not  have  called  the  begin- 
ning day  of  a  month  20,  considering  that  twenty  days  had  passed 
of  the  preceding  month,  and  that  their  count  was  regulated  by  the 
number  of  days  which  had  passed.  As  far  as  the  month  dates  are 
concerned,  however,  it  is  absolutely  unimportant  whether  the 
beginning  day  is  called  o  or  20.  Goodman  says  that  the  Mayas 
had  no  need  of  a  zero  (following  the  Romans  in  this  respect), 
since  zero  was  of  no  use  as  a  multiplier.  This  is  hardly  conclusive. 
It  may  be  true,  as  Goodman  says,  that  the  Mayas  in  their  month 


NUMBERED  ZERO   {OR   TWENTY)   OR   ONE?  7 

dates  spoke  of  the  twenty  days  which  had  passed  in  the  preceding 
month ;  but  it  is  equally  true  that  they  may  have  expressed  this 
idea  by  attaching  the  number  zero  to  the  beginning  day  on  the 
ground  that  no  days  of  the  current  month  had  elapsed.  Indeed 
the  latter  explanation  is  the  more  credible,  since,  if  they  had 
spoken  of  the  twenty  days  of  the  preceding  month  as  having 
elapsed,  it  would  seem  possible  at  least,  and  perhaps  probable,  that 
they  would  have  used  the  name  of  the  preceding  month  as  well, 
and  would  have  called  the  beginning  day  of  Yaxkin,  for  instance, 
20  Xul  and  not  20  Yaxkin.  But  this  it  seems  they  did  not  do, 
unless  the  instance  on  the  Temple  of  the  Cross  and  that  of  the 
Dresden  Codex,  already  cited,  would  bear  this  construction.  These 
instances,  however,  are  contradicted  by  all  the  other  cases  and  are 
themselves  capable  of  a  different  interpretation.  It  would  seem 
as  if  the  Mayas  probably  called  the  beginning  day  of  a  month  by 
the  name  of  the  current  month,  and  that  they  attached  the  zero  to 
it,  meaning  that  no  days  of  that  month  had  elapsed.  Moreover 
such  a  plan  is  very  much  easier  for  calculation  and  there  is  less 
liability  to  error;  for  it  is  natural  to  think  of  a  day  with  the 
number  20  as  following  a  day  with  the  number  19  and  as  being  the 
last  day  of  a  month  containing  20  days,  rather  than  the  beginning 
day  of  a  month.  I  do  not  place  too  much  reliance  on  this, 
however,  for  it  is  hardly  safe  to  argue  back  from  what  we  at  this 
time  would  consider  the  best  thing  to  do,  in  order  to  find  out  what 
some  other  nation  at  some  other  time  would  have  done. 

The  chief  evidence  in  favor  of  giving  the  o  or  20  glyph  the 
meaning  of  20  is,  that  this  glyph  is  often  drawn  with  a  hand 
stretching  across  its  lower  part,  especially  when  the  main  part 
of  the  glyph  is  a  face.  Now  the  face  glyphs  which  represent 
the  cycle  of  144,000  days  and  the  katun  of  7,200  days  are  very 
similar,  except  that  the  cycle  glyph  has  also  a  hand  across  its 
lower  part,  and  the  cycle  is  equal  to  2okatuns;  but  this  evidence 


8  BEGINNING  DA  Y  OF  MA  YA   MONTH 

is  somewhat  weak,  since  it  is  clear  that  even  if  the  o  or  20  glyph 
should  be  decided  to  mean  20,  in  all  calculations  it  is  to  be  treated 
as  o,  as  is  proved  by  many  of  the  inscriptions  of  Palenque,  Piedras 
Negras,  Copan,  and  elsewhere. 

On  the  whole,  therefore,  I  think  the  weight  of  evidence  is 
in  favor  of  the  hypothesis  that  the  Mayas  called  the  beginning 
days  of  their  month  Day  o  and  numbered  the  days  of  their  month 
from  o  to  19. 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 
BERKELEY 

Return  to  desk  from  which  borrowed. 
This  book  is  DUE  on  the  last  date  stamped  below. 


7Jan'53FFM 
&    1953rttl. 


pi 


^"^29  1969  75 


m 

RECD  Uu) 

\ 

'  REC'D  LD 

)CT5    'eS-lUNl 


LD  21-100m-7,'52(A2528sl6)476 


A[JG2  7J97I41 
{EC'DLDAU613^^  -bm4i 


Due  e 


SU 


V,;,rt    to    rP 


T«W««1S3lpi 


0CTl7)97Jx/ 


RETURN  TO  the  circulation  desk  of  any 

University  of  California  Library 

or  to  the 

NORTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 
BIdg.  400,  Richmond  Field  Station 
University  of  California 
Richmond,  CA  94804-4698 

ALL  BOOKS  MAY  BE  RECALLED  AFTER  7  DAYS 
2-month  loans  may  be  renewed  by  calling 

(415)642-6233 
1-year  loans  may  be  recharged  by  bringing  books 

to  NRLF 
Renewals  and  recharges  may  be  made  4  days 

prior  to  due  date 

DUE  AS  STAMPED  BELOW 

JAN  2  0  1990 

DEC  14  1989BEC'Q 


